Trump Illegal Alien Executive Orders - Follow the Litigation Bouncing Ball
nolu chan
September 11, 2017
Today, the Trump Administration filed an Application with SCOTUS for a Stay of a recent 9th Circus opinion which upheld a District Court of Hawaii opinion. Today's application for a stay asserted of the 9th Circus, "Despite this Court’s rulings, last Thursday the Ninth Circuit affirmed the entire modified injunction. The court of appeals did not even attempt to reconcile its decision with this Court’s July 19 Order. Instead, the court of appeals deferred to the district court’s interpretation of this Court’s June 26 stay ruling."
In short order, today Justice Anthony Kennedy issued an Order stating, "IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case No. 17-16426, is hereby stayed with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending receipt of a response, due on or before Tuesday, September 12, 2017, by 12 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court. "
That is harsh, requiring a response by noon tomorrow. It may be that Justice Kennedy is not amused by the antics of the 9th Circus upholding the District of Hawaii on the basis of the District interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2017cv00050/132721/270/
Hawaii v. Trump, DCHI 17-cv-00050 (29 Mar 2017)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONVERT TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
On March 15, 2017, the Court temporarily enjoined Sections 2 and 6 of Executive Order No. 13,780, entitled, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” 82 Fed. Reg. 13209 (Mar. 6, 2017). See Order Granting Mot. for TRO, ECF No. 219 [hereinafter TRO]. Plaintiffs State of Hawai‘i and Ismail Elshikh, Ph.D., now move to convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction. See Pls.’ Mot. to Convert TRO to Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 238 [hereinafter Motion]. Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, and following a hearing on March 29, 2017, the Court concludes that, on the record before it, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim, that irreparable injury is likely if the requested relief is not issued, and that the balance of the equities and public interest counsel in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 238) is
GRANTED.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf
Trump v. Intl Refugee Assistance Project, et al, (16436), (16A1190); Trump v. Hawaii, et al, (16-1540) (16-A1191), S. Ct. 582 U.S. ____ (26 June 2017), per curiam,
These cases involve challenges to Executive Order No. 13780, Protecting the Nation From Foreign TerroristEntry Into the United States. The order alters practicesconcerning the entry of foreign nationals into the United States by, among other things, suspending entry of nationals from six designated countries for 90 days. Respondents challenged the order in two separate lawsuits.They obtained preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of several of its provisions, including the 90-day suspension of entry. The injunctions were upheld in largemeasure by the Courts of Appeals. The Government filed separate petitions for certiorari,as well as applications to stay the preliminary injunctions entered by the lower courts. We grant the petitions for certiorari and grant the stay applications in part.
http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/hawaii/hidce/1:2017cv00050/132721/322/0.pdf
Hawaii v. Trump, DCHI 17-cv-00050 (6 July 2017)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO CLARIFY SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/general/cases_of_interest/17-15589%20per%20curiam%20opinion.pdf
Hawaii v. Trump, 17-16426 (9th Cir., 7 Sept. 2017), per curiam,
"enjoins the Government from enforcing Executive Order 13789 against (1) grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins of persons in the United States; and (2) refugees who have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (“USRAP”) through the Lautenberg Amendment. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that in modifying the preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo, the district court carefully and correctly balanced the hardships and the equitable considerations as directed by the Supreme Court in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2088 (2017), and did not abuse its discretion. We affirm.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/17A275-Trump-v.-Hawaii-App.-Stay-1.pdf
Trump v. Hawaii, S. Ct. 16-1540, APPLICATION FOR A STAY of the Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Affirming the Modified Prelminary Injunction (11 Sept. 2017)
More than two months ago, on June 26, 2017, this Court granted certiorari to review two nationwide preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of Executive Order 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 9, 2017) (Order). Only the injunction in this case barred enforcement of the refugee restrictions in Section 6(a) and (b) of the Order. As relevant here, the Court partially stayed that injunction to allow the Order’s refugee provisions to “take effect,” except as applied to refugees who have a bona fide “relationship with” a U.S. individual or entity. Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2089 (2017) (per curiam) (IRAP). Several weeks later, when the district court in this case modified its injunction and severely undermined this Court’s stay as to the refugee provisions, the Court again intervened and unanimously granted a second stay. 16-1540 Order (July 19, 2017) (July 19 Order). In so doing, the Court necessarily determined that the government was likely to succeed in challenging the modification of the injunction with respect to refugees. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-435 (2009). Despite this Court’s rulings, last Thursday the Ninth Circuit affirmed the entire modified injunction. The court of appeals did not even attempt to reconcile its decision with this Court’s July 19 Order. Instead, the court of appeals deferred to the district court’s interpretation of this Court’s June 26 stay ruling. The Ninth Circuit thus upheld the district court’s determination that a refugee is exempt from the Order if a U.S. resettlement agency has made a promise to the federal government (known as an “assurance,” Addendum (Add.) 25) to provide services to the refugee when the refugee arrives in this country, notwithstanding that such agencies typically do not have any pre-arrival contact with the refugee himself. That conclusion effectively reads out of this Court’s June 26 stay ruling its requirement that the refugee have a “relationship with” a U.S. entity, IRAP, 137 S. Ct. at 2089, and it requires the admission of refugees who have no connection to the United States independent of the refugee-admission process itself.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/17A275-Trump-v.-Hawaii-Temp-Stay-Resp-Order-9-11-17.pdf
Supreme Court of the United States No. 17A275
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,
Applicants
v.
HAWAII, ET AL.
O R D E R
UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,
IT IS ORDERED that the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case No. 17-16426, is hereby stayed with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending receipt of a response, due on or before Tuesday, September 12, 2017, by 12 p.m., and further order of the undersigned or of the Court.
/s/ Anthony M. Kennedy
Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States
Dated this 11th
day of September, 2017.
... To be continued.
